Agree with Flack. If Hall's finger grazing the ball should've been deemed to be a try then so too should've GI's grazing finger in this shot deemed that he grounded it, which in turn nullifies anything that happened afterwards.
No, Greg was not putting downward pressure on the ball, he was putting sideways pressure in an effort to knock it dead. It's not fucking rocket surgery.
The GI still frame shows how useless a still frame shot is, tells a completely different story to the truth. The rule should simply be "sufficient downward pressure" allowing the video ref to make a judgement call to apply common sense. If the ref is allowed to make a judgement call at first and influence the video ref's decision then he too should be allowed instead of having to follow absurdly strict guidelines. They already do it now with the separation ruling after the stupidity of how strict they used to be with that, don't see how this should be any different. That was definitely not sufficient downward pressure.
GI definitely gets downward pressure on it because he fucks up his attempt to knock the ball over the dead ball line but there's clearly no intent. Same rule applies if a defending player slips over in goals and accidentally grounds the ball whilst trying to make their way out. Refs are just all over the shop we these kinds of interpretations though so fuck knows where refs stand on the issue at the moment though. I'd be happy for neither of Jennings or Hall's attempts to be considered tries but on the basis of consistency both are afaic.
All I see is a fuzzy blur close to the ball. Are there rules stating that you can ground the ball with a fuzzy blur?
You can't have it both ways though. Wouldn't this create a different set of rules for the offensive and defensive players?
What Mousey said. You guys were saying earlier that all that mattered was that the ball was on the ground and that there was a finger on it. Well that's exactly what GI has done there. If it's not a grounding by GI then it's not a grounding by Hall.
The ball was beginning to rise when Hall got a finger on it. Yeah the ball is still technically on the ground but i'd argue there's not enough downward pressure if the ball is still managing to rise upwards while you're attempting to ground it.
Which was pretty much the explanation from the VR, the ball in rising exerted upward pressure on Halls little pinky finger, not the other way round.
Hall got downward pressure because his hand was moving downward. Even if the ball was rising, he still put downward pressure on it. GI didn't, he put upward or sideways pressure on it.
It's a frame of a HD youtube video... It's the moment there is downward pressure on the ball when it is on the ground.
The ball continues to rise as contact is made, therefore the downward pressure exerted by Hall, is not sufficient to overcome the momentum of the ball. Given the relatively low speed, and low angle of the balls trajectory, this demonstrates any downward pressure exerted by Hall was so negligible as to be insufficient to indicate any control over the ball at the point of the so called grounding. Even whilst bearing in mind that control before or after the grounding is irrelevant, control is still required at the point of grounding. The argument is whether contact is sufficient to assume control, because to excerpt downward pressure, thus determining the balls trajectory, one must assume control.
This is starting to remind me of the police Defence case in the Rodney Hyde (spelling) beating trial where they slowed the video down and accused him of resisting arrest each time his body recoiled to yet another batton or punch raining down on him.
I would willingly concede the level of downward pressure of the batons upon Hyde constituted a reasonable level of control by the arresting officers, despite the natural protestations by Hyde to avoid as much as is practicable, given the circumstances, being beaten to death
